A Coopetition Index for Coalitions in Simple Games

In monotone simple games, larger coalitions typically wield more power, but do all players align their efforts effectively? Consider a voting scenario where a coalition forms, but needs more voters to pass a bill. The cohesion of the new group of voters hinges on whether all the new members can prof...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:arXiv.org 2024-07
Main Authors: Aleandri, Michele, Dall'Aglio, Marco
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Cooperation
Games
Players
Subgroups
Voters
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:In monotone simple games, larger coalitions typically wield more power, but do all players align their efforts effectively? Consider a voting scenario where a coalition forms, but needs more voters to pass a bill. The cohesion of the new group of voters hinges on whether all the new members can proficiently collaborate with the existing players to ensure the bill's passage or if subgroups form that pursue an independent alternative, thus generating antagonism among the new voters. This research introduces the coopetition index, ranging from -1 to 1, to measure agents' preferences for cooperation (near 1) or competition (near -1) with the remaining players. We also introduce the Banzhaf and Shapley-Owen coopetition indices, addressing limitations of previous indices. By applying our index to the apex game and symmetric majority games, we observe that cooperation and competition frequently balance each other out, leading to null values for the Shapley-Owen and Banzhaf coopetition indices. To distinguish balanced scenarios from those involving powerless coalitions, we define a decisiveness index that measures the extent of coalition involvement in negotiations.
ISSN:2331-8422